That is what this thread, and Reichmann's original article, are about.

It doesn't seem to me that apocryphal photographer who showed a wallet snapshot to Picasso and said, "I'd like to show you my wife"genuinely confused a photograph with reality. It seems to me that both he and Picasso shared the obvious understanding that the snapshot was a piece of paper that showed an image of the photographer's wife, and Picasso simply took the opportunity to belittle him.

But you don't want to discuss the topic anymore, and only post diversions to distract from what has been said.

Not sure if you completely missed the point being made or are wriggling like crazy so as not to admit you made a mistake. One you hypocritically criticised others for. And claiming anything that others on LuLa posts that conflicts with you or your quotes is off topic is tiresome.

Quote

What was said is that Garry Winogrand, an authoritative source. on multiple occasions and in various ways stated that photographs are not reality, are not the scene photographed, and (his word) are an illusion.You say Winogrand is wrong, stating "illusion is the wrong word. Representation is what should be used." But you are not the authoritative voice that Winogrand is...

Give it a rest with the tedious and incessant quoting of others. Seeing as the people on this forum have views that are apparently completely worthless in your opinion, despite your knowing nothing about anyone here, why do you bother with us ignorant and unauthoritative plebs? Your constant copying and pasting of other people's opinions only seems to indicate you have nothing of your own to offer.Such as ....

Why, simply because he agrees with you? And somehow you think that proves something.

Quote

Regardless of how poorly you might understand English word usage, that isn't the topic here. Photography and the analysis of photographs is the topic..

Once again with the hypocrisy. When you aren't quoting someone or critiquing their non-standard English, you are complaining on about personal attacks yet are quite happy to do just that yourself.

And as for my supposed lack of English ability, when I queried that illusion was the wrong word, the fact that it may have first been used in that context by someone else only shows that both of you are misusing the word and certainly not that I didn't realise it was the only relevant voice on photography that made the error. Because you and this God like photographer used 'illusion' in a certain way, then the rest of the English speaking world must be wrong, is what you now seem to be saying.

I'm guessing that the real reason for your recent arrival and the sudden deluge of posts on LuLa is to sneer at us stupid people because you've made yourself very unwelcome at other online locations.You will now be put on the ignore list.

It doesn't seem to me that apocryphal photographer who showed a wallet snapshot to Picasso and said, "I'd like to show you my wife"genuinely confused a photograph with reality. It seems to me that both he and Picasso shared the obvious understanding that the snapshot was a piece of paper that showed an image of the photographer's wife, and Picasso simply took the opportunity to belittle him.

Quite possibly or maybe simply some wordplay banter. But because it was Picasso, it will be ascribed a more profound meaning because he's well....Picasso.

It doesn't seem to me that apocryphal photographer who showed a wallet snapshot to Picasso and said, "I'd like to show you my wife"genuinely confused a photograph with reality. It seems to me that both he and Picasso shared the obvious understanding that the snapshot was a piece of paper that showed an image of the photographer's wife, and Picasso simply took the opportunity to belittle him.

So?

The point is that if you read, and want to discuss the article by Michael Reichmann that this thread is about, that is the topic.

That you want to distract from reason and logic with a diversion that you've created? It isn't on topic.

Quote

Give it a rest with the tedious and incessant quoting of others.

When your opinion is at odds with authoritative expert opinions it should be enlightening. The first point where the light should go on is that your opinin probably isn't well reasoned and/or logical. It should be rethought. But the last thing you should do is attack the person who showed you what authoritative voices have said, or worse yet attack those voices.

Quote

Seeing as the people on this forum have views that are apparently completely worthless in your opinion, despite your knowing nothing about anyone here, why do you bother with us ignorant and unauthoritative plebs? Your constant copying and pasting of other people's opinions only seems to indicate you have nothing of your own to offer.

Don't speak for me. It is quit clear that there are many people here with very valuable opinions.

You again just go on and on with a manufactured distraction. It's not worth responding to.

Susan Sontag had a great deal to say about the in what ways and to what degree we conflate photographs with reality. Things are different now, 40 years down time, but some things remain the same. We still get irrationally worried and upset when people photograph our children, which suggests that certain ancient superstitions remain.

If you haven't read Sontag, I submit that you're missing some of the basic work that's been done on these admittedly pretty esoteric and ultimately not terribly interesting issues. If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. She had some pretty good thoughts and wrote some of 'em down.

Susan Sontag had a great deal to say about the in what ways and to what degree we conflate photographs with reality. Things are different now, 40 years down time, but some things remain the same. We still get irrationally worried and upset when people photograph our children, which suggests that certain ancient superstitions remain.

If you haven't read Sontag, I submit that you're missing some of the basic work that's been done on these admittedly pretty esoteric and ultimately not terribly interesting issues. If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. She had some pretty good thoughts and wrote some of 'em down.

But Sontag didn't write so much about the reality of photographs as she did about the reality of photography. There is a difference. She did touch on the idea that people do relate to a photograph as reality, but her real point was the effects of photography on culture. Her essays were on the anthropology of photography, and the effects are essentially the same whether people think a photograph is real or whether they see it as this illlusion/representation that has been under discussion here.

Because I do a lot of "people pictures" I've always been interested in the philosophy that Sontage expressed. She discussed the fact that many people see images, whether drawings or photographs, as usurping a spiritual part of the subject depicted. Sontag famously pointed out that it is an assault to photograph a person:

"To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time."

Which discusses the effects of photography, not the photograph. But necessarily that discussion at time centers on exactly what a photograph is in the same sense we have been discussing:

"such images are indeed able to usurp reality because first of all a photograph is not only an image, an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stenciled off the real"

There are interesting criticisms of Sontag, some of which relate to the style of argument used here by some. One is that her early essays were written before she had the credentials that she ultimately did! It can also be argued that she was even to begin with a credible authority, but some like the idea that until she was partnered with Annie Leibovitz, Sontag didn't know photography well enough to analyze it accuratly. Seems to be nothing more than a well orchestrated and worthless distraction.

Susan Sontag ... Things are different now, 40 years down time, but some things remain the same.

Indeed, some things remain the same -- "Recently, photography has become almost as widely practiced an amusement as sex and dancing -- which means that, like every mass art form, photography is not practiced by most people as an art. It is mainly a social rite, a defense against anxiety, and a tool of power." ("In Plato's Cave", in "On Photography".)